How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students&rsquo; perceptions on local climate governance and democracy

Simon, Marine; Budke, Alexandra

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308

Preprints

04 May 2026

| 04 May 2026

How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students’ perceptions on local climate governance and democracy

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Abstract. Climate change presents major challenges for cities and requires local decision-making processes involving diverse stakeholders. At the same time, research shows that secondary students often hold misconceptions about climate-related measures, and that there is sometimes reduced support for democratic principles. Innovative educational approaches are therefore needed to foster students’ knowledge and engagement with local climate policy. Although gamification is considered as a promising strategy in climate education, little is known about how escape games supported by a debriefing/reflection phase can support learning about local climate governance and democratic processes. This study presents two educational escape games addressing local climate policy solutions, stakeholder perspectives, and urban decision-making. A pre- and post-test control group design was implemented with 172 secondary students (aged 14–20) from Germany, Italy, and Spain. All students played one of the games; the experimental group participated in a structured debriefing/reflection phase, while the control group did not. We analysed changes in students’ perceptions of local political stakeholders and their opinions on democratic decision-making at the city level. Results indicate that playing the escape games led to students’ better understanding of stakeholders, of their own role, and of governance processes in the context of addressing climate change-related issues. However, students who engaged in the debriefing demonstrated more differentiated perceptions. Students expressed mostly support for democratic processes; however, after playing without debriefing/reflecting, some students did significantly less support democratic decision-making, whereas students who debriefed/reflected the games did not. The findings underline the crucial role of structured debriefing/reflection in transforming an escape game experience into political and democratic learning.

Received: 22 Apr 2026 – Discussion started: 04 May 2026

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Status: final response (author comments only)

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2308', Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk, 29 May 2026

dear Authors, thank you for the opportunity to read your manuscript. I think you can convert it into an good paper but with extra data collection and the directions I provided you with in the review. I hope the comments are supportive to your work and bring you guidance in working on this publication. I see you put great effort in producing a well structured clear manuscript and I can see the relevance of it though it needs sharpening. So I think it will be worth the effort to work on major revisions. If you need further clarification you can contact me at marieke.dewijse-vanheeswijk@ru.nl. I wish you well in working on this manuscript so it can become an examplary one for other authors. best Marieke

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC1
- RC2:
  'Reply on RC1', Marieke de Wijse-van Heeswijk, 29 May 2026
  
  I am sorry I forgot to add this (I am new to this system) these are some more general comments on how to improve your paper
  Review of "How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students' perceptions on local climate governance and democracy"
  
  The manuscript addresses an important and timely topic situated at the intersection of climate education, local governance, democratic participation, and game-based learning. The focus on local climate governance and the attempt to empirically investigate the role of debriefing/reflection after gameplay are potentially valuable contributions. The manuscript is generally well structured, the literature base is relatively broad, and the paper addresses themes that are relevant for Geoscience Communication.
  
  At the same time, I have substantial conceptual and methodological concerns regarding the current version of the manuscript. In its present form, I do not believe the paper provides sufficiently robust conceptual grounding or methodological clarity to support several of its central claims and interpretations. My concerns are outlined below.
  
  1. Conceptual ambiguity regarding gamification, games, and simulation gaming
  
  A major conceptual issue concerns the paper's use of the term "gamification". The manuscript repeatedly positions the intervention within the gamification literature, yet the intervention itself consists of fully developed escape games involving stakeholder interaction, resource allocation, governance dilemmas, competing interests, collaborative problem-solving, and structured debriefing/reflection phases.
  
  Conceptually, this appears much closer to serious gaming, escape games, or simulation gaming approaches than to gamification in the narrower sense of adding game elements to non-game educational contexts.
  
  The paper would therefore benefit from much clearer conceptual positioning regarding:
  
  * gamification;
  
  * serious games;
  
  * simulation games;
  
  * escape games;
  
  * and experiential/simulation-based learning.
  
  At present, these concepts appear partially conflated. Furthermore, much of the theoretical grounding (Crookall, Kolb, Kriz, experiential learning, debriefing literature) aligns more strongly with the simulation gaming field than with gamification research.
  
  2. Overly strong and insufficiently substantiated novelty claims
  
  Several novelty claims in the manuscript are formulated too strongly and are insufficiently substantiated. Statements such as:
  
  * "no escape game is available";
  
  * "there is no debriefing or reflection material";
  
  * and "no game or debriefing was evaluated"
  
  require a much more systematic literature review strategy than is currently provided.
  
  The manuscript does not sufficiently clarify:
  
  * which databases/search engines were consulted;
  
  * which keywords were used;
  
  * what inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied;
  
  * how "escape game", "local governance", "stakeholder complexity", or "democratic decision-making" were operationalised;
  
  * or whether adjacent fields such as simulation gaming, policy gaming, role-play simulations, civic engagement games, sustainability games, and participatory governance simulations were included in the review scope.
  
  While the exact combination of local climate governance, escape games, and debriefing may indeed be relatively uncommon, the current wording suggests a much broader absence of prior work than can reasonably be supported.
  
  The novelty claims should therefore either be substantially softened or supported through a transparent and systematic review strategy.
  
  3. Fundamental conceptual and operationalisation problems
  
  My primary concern relates to the relationship between the theoretical claims of the paper and the empirical measurements actually used.
  
  Throughout the manuscript, terms such as:
  
  * learning;
  
  * understanding;
  
  * democratic engagement;
  
  * governance insight;
  
  * democratic support;
  
  * perceptions;
  
  * opinions;
  
  * and engagement
  
  are frequently used in close connection and sometimes appear to be treated as partially interchangeable.
  
  However, the empirical measurements mainly consist of:
  
  * Likert-scale ratings concerning stakeholder importance;
  
  * and agreement/disagreement with normative statements about democratic decision-making.
  
  This creates a major conceptual tension between:
  
  * the broad claims made regarding learning, democratic understanding, governance complexity, and engagement;
  
  * and the comparatively narrow operationalisation through self-reported perceptions and attitudes.
  
  For example:
  
  * changes in perceived stakeholder importance;
  
  * or changes in agreement with democratic statements
  
  do not necessarily demonstrate:
  
  * deeper understanding of governance complexity;
  
  * democratic competence;
  
  * political literacy;
  
  * systems thinking;
  
  * or learning in a stronger educational sense.
  
  At several points, the interpretation of the results appears broader than what the measurements can robustly support.
  
  The manuscript would therefore require much clearer distinctions between:
  
  * perceptions;
  
  * opinions/attitudes;
  
  * engagement;
  
  * knowledge;
  
  * democratic orientations;
  
  * and learning outcomes.
  
  In its current form, the paper risks overinterpreting relatively limited self-report measures.
  
  4. Implicit normative framing
  
  The manuscript appears to contain an implicit normative model of democratic governance and participation, yet this is not explicitly theorised or critically reflected upon.
  
  The paper consistently frames:
  
  * participatory governance;
  
  * pluralistic decision-making;
  
  * multi-stakeholder engagement;
  
  * and deliberative democratic processes
  
  as desirable outcomes.
  
  Conversely, support for more centralised or authoritative decision-making is implicitly framed as problematic.
  
  This is visible in:
  
  * the framing around "democratic deconsolidation";
  
  * formulations such as "to counter this";
  
  * and the interpretation of findings concerning democratic attitudes.
  
  Normative positioning in democratic education research is not inherently problematic. However, in the present manuscript, the normative assumptions remain largely implicit while simultaneously shaping the interpretation of the empirical findings.
  
  This becomes especially important because:
  
  * the study concerns political and democratic attitudes;
  
  * the participants are minors;
  
  * and the intervention aims to shape perceptions regarding governance and democracy.
  
  The manuscript would therefore benefit from a much more explicit reflection on its normative assumptions and educational positioning.
  
  5. Weaknesses in the study design and sample composition
  
  The methodological design raises substantial concerns.
  
  Although the overall sample size (N = 172) may be acceptable for exploratory educational research, the effective subgroup sizes are small and highly uneven. More importantly, country, intervention condition, and game modality appear partially confounded.
  
  For example:
  
  * German students only appear in the experimental condition;
  
  * Spanish students only appear in the control condition;
  
  * and the paper-based game is predominantly associated with the experimental condition.
  
  As a consequence, it becomes difficult to disentangle:
  
  * gameplay effects;
  
  * debriefing effects;
  
  * facilitator/context effects;
  
  * country/cultural differences;
  
  * language differences;
  
  * and game modality effects.
  
  The argument that groups can be combined because Kruskal-Wallis tests were non-significant should also be treated cautiously. With relatively small and uneven groups, non-significant findings do not demonstrate equivalence and may simply reflect limited statistical power.
  
  The study therefore appears exploratory and indicative rather than capable of supporting stronger causal claims regarding the role of debriefing/reflection.
  
  6. Research questions and analytical focus
  
  The research questions would benefit from substantial clarification.
  
  Currently, they combine:
  
  * gameplay;
  
  * debriefing/reflection;
  
  * stakeholder perceptions;
  
  * democratic attitudes;
  
  * and local governance
  
  within single questions.
  
  At the same time, the study design explicitly distinguishes between:
  
  * gameplay only;
  
  * and gameplay plus debriefing/reflection.
  
  The research questions should therefore more clearly distinguish:
  
  * the effects of gameplay;
  
  * from the additional effects of debriefing.
  
  At present, the analytical focus remains somewhat diffuse.
  
  7. Language and style
  
  The manuscript is generally readable and reasonably well structured. However, several sections adopt a somewhat normative or policy-oriented tone rather than a consistently analytical academic style.
  
  Examples include:
  
  * "To counter this";
  
  * "there is a need to";
  
  * "it is imperative";
  
  * and similar formulations.
  
  Some sections also contain repetitive wording and recurring transitional phrases ("therefore", "however", "it has been shown", etc.). A stylistic revision could improve readability and strengthen the scholarly tone of the manuscript.
  
  Recommendation
  
  Although the topic is relevant and potentially valuable for the journal, I currently have major concerns regarding:
  
  * conceptual clarity;
  
  * construct operationalisation;
  
  * the relationship between empirical measurements and interpretative claims;
  
  * implicit normative assumptions;
  
  * and the methodological robustness of the study design.
  
  In particular, I do not believe the current operationalisation sufficiently supports the broader claims made about learning, democratic understanding, governance complexity, and engagement.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC2
  - EC1: 'Thanks for RC2', David Crookall, 29 May 2026
    
    Many thanks, Marieka, for your excellent and thorough review.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-EC1
  - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marine Simon, 31 Aug 2026
    
    Dear Marieke,
    In addition to our answer, we would like to respond to one remark from the commented manuscript: Integrating students’ emotions as being inherently part of the debriefing (and of Figure 1) is a very interesting suggestion and we are very thankful for this. We will consider it in the final version of the manuscript, if given the opportunity.
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-AC2
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marine Simon, 31 Aug 2026
  
  Dear Marieke,
  Thank you very much for your very detailed, encouraging and thoughtful review. We appreciate the time you invested in reviewing the manuscript and providing guidance to improve it.
  First of all, thank you for your appreciation of our manuscript and of its relevance. We are pleased that you consider that the manuscript can become an exemplary one for other authors.
  We concur that the conceptual grounding around the concepts of gamification, games, and simulation gaming is too vague, and that the wording and references to “gamification” should be removed. The paper would benefit from a clearer orientation towards serious, simulation, or escape games than towards gamification. Should we be asked to work on a final version of our manuscript, we would address this by improving our theoretical grounding.
  We also agree that our presentation of the research gaps and of the games’ novelty may be too strongly formulated and would need to be softened. This is partly due to the fact that the games are a rare combination of the following elements: they are escape games, they focus on the local climate governance and on stakeholders’ arguments and opinions, and they are intended for use with secondary students. We are only claiming novelty for this specific combination. We are also sure that there are plenty of existing serious games presenting different stakeholders having to find solutions to local situations and humbly know that many games already address different aspects of local stakeholders and policies. We will try to substantiate our claims more and soften our novelty assertions, if we are to prepare a final version of the manuscript.
  We understand that the conceptual and theoretical framing may be strong compared to the empirical measurements. But, it is common in political science studies to measure perceptions and opinions on topics such as perceptions of stakeholders and opinions on democratic decision-making, using self-reported Likert scales or items. However, it is clearly a limitation, since such opinions and perceptions are only valid for a specific moment in time and can change rapidly. We should address this in the limitations section of this study. The results would need to be confirmed via, for example, a comprehensive study using qualitative data, such as interviews. However, we disagree that the chosen theoretical terms, such as perceptions, opinions, engagement and democratic support, are treated in the manuscript as partially interchangeable, since we carefully defined the different terms and also differentiated between them (for example, between perceptions and opinions (see lines 350-362)). But, if given the opportunity, we will cautiously revise the definitions and differentiations between the terms.
  We read carefully your concerns on the implicit normative framing of our manuscript and thank you for this remark. We come from the field of geography education and political science, and from a European context – our academic and political systems are democratic and defend democracy. In this context, geography education aims to enhance different competences. Among these are political, democratic and civic competences which are also inherently part of the schools’ and school systems’ curricula. In these curricula, democracy is studied as a political system, in its complexity; however, democracy is also presented as a desirable outcome, authoritative decision-making is framed as problematic. Although we understand that our article is integrated in this educational, social and political context, we don’t think that this needs to be discussed since such a normative assumption is common and evident (in geography education and in political science) – such as is the goal to try to counter climate change. However, precising this assumptions and frame for the study would maybe help in the introduction or in the theoretical part of the article.
  We read your concerns on the study design and sample composition. We agree that the convenience sample, due to the complexity of the consortium’s experimental conditions and the unequal group sizes and treatments, are an important limitation, and already mentioned this in the limitations section. However, we should reflect more on this overall in the manuscript and in the limitations section and also interpret the findings as more exploratory – although our data shows interesting tendencies and although we did not imply causation in the first version of the manuscript.
  We thank you for your very constructive feedback on the research questions and their formulation. We emphasised the effects on the two topics of 1) students’ perceptions of stakeholders and 2) students’ democratic opinions; however, it is right that we specifically investigated the effect of debriefing on these, and should clearly reflect this distinction between the experimental and the control groups. We should also formulate these research questions more accurately.
  Thank you for your remark on language and style, which is related to the comment on the normative assumptions. Policy-oriented and/or normative statements are not rare in geography education and in political science, although this might not be the case in other academic fields. However, we could adapt our manuscript to soften the normative language, and also improve the language correctness.
  Overall, we thank you for the very constructive, interesting and challenging review. We hope we’ll be able to address your concerns in a final version of the manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-AC1
RC3:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2308', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2026

Overall comments. The authors present an interesting study about an important topic: the use of educational games to increase literacy about climate change and democratic governance. They test the impact of debriefing on learning outcomes and provide results that suggest that debriefing enabled students to gain a more nuanced understanding of climate decision-making and support for democratic processes.
The authors did not provide an explicit explanation of why climate action and democracy should be linked. While I personally agree with the importance of democracy for effective climate action, I can easily understand why some argue that more centralized decision-making could lead to faster action. Instead, the authors treat support for democratic decision-making and support for effective climate action as aligned by default. They should either not make this assumption or provide an explanation for why they make it that is grounded in prior research. Similarly, it is possible to have a strong democracy that elects leaders who are then charged with making decisions that the public does not have sufficient expertise or resources to make. It’s unclear to me that support for a single decision-maker (e.g., a mayor) suggests support for authoritarian, rather than democratic, systems.
I found their language to be awkward in places (e.g., see lines 19-20) – clearer and more concise language throughout the manuscript would be helpful.
Study design. The authors should refer to their design as “quasi-experimental” given that students were not randomly assigned to groups and that there are only two control groups – one corresponding to a class in Italy and another corresponding to a class in Spain. There are no German student control data. Worse, whether a group of students is assigned to the treatment or control group is entangled with country and game type. The Kruskal-Wallis tests only show that the groups did not differ significantly before the intervention – they say nothing about whether other factors confounded results (e.g., differences in teachers, culture, curricula, etc.).
Statistical analyses and results. The use of Wilcoxon tests for paired comparisons leads to a very large number of tests and a strong potential for false positives. Ordinal logistic regression with time (pre/post) as a predictor and student, class, country, etc. as fixed effects would provide a means to test for pre/post effects, while also assessing (and controlling for) other potential effects. It would also be helpful for the authors to provide confidence intervals or other means to evaluate the range of estimated effect sizes – e.g., r = 0.632 from 15-20 students could have a very wide plausible range.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC3
- EC2: 'Thank you for RC3', David Crookall, 10 Jul 2026
  
  Thank you, Referee #2, for an excellent and incisive review.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-EC2
- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Marine Simon, 31 Aug 2026
  
  Dear Anonymous Referee #2, thank you for your interesting and challenging review.
  First of all, we would like to thank you for your appreciation of the importance of the topic and the interest of the study.
  We read with attention your remarks on the lack of explanation of why climate action and democracy should be linked and on the alignment between support for democratic decision-making and support for effective climate action. We would like to provide three arguments to answer to this.
  First, as we mentioned in our answer to the first reviewer, we do not think that the purpose of this article is to discuss whether democracy is the right system to tackle climate change, although we would agree to provide references that do so and although we understand why climate action challenges how democracies function and how decisions are made. Our background is geography education and political science and we come from Europe. Our study was led with secondary students who are minors and with public schools subject to official curricula that provide democratic and civic education and defend democracy as a common fundamental value. In this context and for our students, it is within democratic systems and with democratic ways of decision-making (which are sometimes diverse, depending on the local system) that solutions to tackle climate change have to be found. We think that precising these elements in the theoretical or methodological parts may help understand the frame in which the study was led.
  Second, in geography education there is an important teaching principle which is authenticity and didactic reduction of reality. Although it is possible to imagine a strong democratic leader taking climate decisions unilaterally when elected, this situation is not likely to prevail in Europe. Also, in the countries where the study was led, mayors are elected within a list and often build a majority or compete with other political lists. As we present in the article, urban climate action is a local policy decided at the local level in a multilevel governance system implying different stakeholders. Therefore, local democracy and local climate action are characterised by this plurality of concurring interests. Thus, assuming in the study that a strong mayor deciding alone could be a democratic way to take climate decisions would simply not respect the principles of authenticity and didactic reduction of reality.
  Third, it is common in political science studies to interpret an item measuring support for a strong leader as indicating a lack of support for democracy (for example: Wuttke et al. 2022). We understand that this has limitations and can be discussed, and that measuring lack of support / support for democracy is difficult. However we contend that this also applies to the local scale since local democratic systems are also characterised by a plurality of stakeholders and different collective ways of taking action or making decisions. If we are asked to send a final version of the manuscript, we will explain and discuss these elements in the limitations section of the article.
  Thank you for the remark on language. We will proofread the manuscript and use work on a clearer language if given the opportunity.
  We agree that we should refer to our study as quasi-experimental. We concur that the study conditions (due to the composition and local conditions of the local partners) and the convenience sample are important limitations. We know that there are possible confounding variables and that the study is exploratory, indicative and by no means representative. Maybe explaining this more clearly throughout the manuscript and in the limitations section would help resolve this point.
  Thank you for your helpful comment on statistical analyses. We are aware of the risk of false positives and would be ready to try and replace the Wilcoxon tests while reanalysing the results using ordinal logistic regression, accounting for repeated observations within students and adjusting for gender and/or country. These analyses would be able to replace or supplement the previous within-group comparisons in the revised manuscript. We would also precise the results or nuance them while, for example, providing the CI to evaluate the range of the effect sizes.
  We thank you for your appreciation of our manuscript and for your really helpful suggestions.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-AC3
RC4:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2308', Anonymous Referee #3, 06 Aug 2026

Review of "How playing and debriefing/reflecting on two escape games influenced students' perceptions on local climate governance and democracy"

General comments :

This study addresses an interesting topic within the scope of Geoscience Communication. The introduction provides a clear overview of the context. However, the current manuscript does not sufficiently describes the gameplay to enable the readers to understand what is implemented, and would benefits from some clarifications on the study design.

Major comment

The title emphasises that the intervention consists of two escape games which appears to be one of the manuscript's main original contributions. However, based on the current description of the two games, it is not clear wether the characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of educational games are present or not, and if they match the definition provided on lines 177-179 of the manuscript. In particular it is unclear what kind of puzzles are involved, how logical reasoning is involved, how cooperation is required, how time pressure contributes to the experience and what is the specific goal. The description of the digital game mainly refers to knowledge quizzes that unlock resources. This sounds closer to a quiz-based serious game than to what readers would generally understand as an escape game.

Figures 2, 3 and 4 provide examples of the game materials but currently they do not contibute to demonstrate the escape game structure of the games, and they are not clearly readable. Since they do not clearly contribute to add value to the manuscript, I would encourage the authors to replace them with figures that better illustrates the game design or progression of the game (workflow for instance). Also, the caption of the Figure 2 seems to reversed the left and right sides.

Minor comments

1. The test and control groups differ substantially in size, without correspondance within countries and game version (for instance Germany is only on the experimental group and Spain only to the control group and on the paper-game only). While the statistical analyses suggest that the groups can be compared, I suggest that the authors discuss more in details how this design can be a limitation for their study and can affect the interpretation of the results.

Plus, the manuscript refers several times to four countries and that the games were developed, translated and tested across all four countries (lines 241, 246, 344). However, the analysed sample include students from only three countries (Germany, Italy and Spain). The authors should clarify this aspect and explain why the data from the fourth country were not included in the present study.

2. The authors explain that they modified the original model proposed by Lux & Budke (2023) by reversing the order of stages 3 and 4, based on their observations on student engagement. This practical justification is understandable however the manuscript would benefit from discussing the possible implications of this modification. Since the intervention no longer follows the original model, I suggest the authors to discuss on whether changing the sequence of stages may have influenced the reflections and learning process.

Conclusions

Overall, I think this manuscript addresses an interesting topic that fits the scope of the journal but it would benefit from a revision addressing the points above, particularly the description of the materials and methods which currently lacks to assess the games such as stated in the title.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-RC4
- EC3: 'Thank you for RC4', David Crookall, 06 Aug 2026
  
  Thank you for your excellent review.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-EC3
- AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Marine Simon, 31 Aug 2026
  
  Dear Anonymous Referee #3, thank you for your interesting and very helpful review.
  We thank you for the important comment on the description of the games. We understand that we should describe and define more precisely both games to better explain why they belong to the escape game category. If we were asked to modify and provide a new version of the manuscript, we would precise our descriptions and provide more elements on the games to see how they fit the definition of escape games.
  We also thank you for the comment on Figures 2, 3 and 4. We had chosen these as concrete examples for elements or parts of the games and they are not intended to show the games’ structures. Figure 2 is not reversed but mentions 4 cards, which is an error since only 3 are displayed, and this should be modified in the caption. We concur that the figures are not easily readable and would try to provide clearer or more readable figures. However, we still think that Figure 2 helps to understand the game “Beat the Heat” and adds value to the manuscript, since it shows how arguments have to be evaluated and classified in order to correspond to possible local policies and stakeholders’ opinions and arguments and at the same time to solve an enigma. This is an important element of our games that arguments and opinions from stakeholders are to be understood, evaluated and put into perspective – and that this allows to solve the games’ enigmas. We would agree that figures illustrating the game design or workflow for both games would be interesting additions to the description of the games. They may replace the present Figures 3 and 4.
  We agree that we should refer to our study as exploratory and that it has several limitations due to the convenience sample and the local conditions. Maybe explaining this more clearly throughout the manuscript and in the limitations section would help resolve this point.
  Thank you for your comment on the countries where the games were tested. We would like to clarify this point if we were to provide a modified version of the manuscript. The games were tested and evaluated in France, Germany, Spain and Italy. However, due to local time constraints, the project partners were unable to run the post-test after the game + debriefing. Therefore, French students were excluded from our analysis.
  Thank you for your comment on the model by Lux and Budke (2023). The change between stages 3 and 4 may indeed have implications on the results; however, in the original model stages were not supposed to have a specific order; they were rather a categorical differentiation. So, we would explain more clearly in the manuscript that we opted for a specific order and discuss its implications for our study in the discussion.
  Again, we gladly thank you for the important and interesting comments you provided and hope to be able to address them in a modified and revised version of our manuscript.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2308-AC4

Marine Simon and Alexandra Budke

Viewed

Total article views: 369 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
222	123	24	369	17	20

HTML: 222
PDF: 123
XML: 24
Total: 369
BibTeX: 17
EndNote: 20

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	82	70	10	162
Jun 2026	27	7	1	35
Jul 2026	48	21	4	73
Aug 2026	35	12	1	48
Sep 2026	30	13	8	51

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 May 2026)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
May 2026	82	70	10	162
Jun 2026	27	7	1	35
Jul 2026	48	21	4	73
Aug 2026	35	12	1	48
Sep 2026	30	13	8	51

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 323 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 323 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 12 Sep 2026

Short summary

We developed and tested two escape games addressing local climate policy, stakeholder perspectives, and democratic decision-making. Playing the games and debriefing afterwards made the students better understand the stakeholders and their own role. Most students supported democratic processes to take climate-related decisions, although some of them did not. The findings show how important it is to have a proper debrief after playing when it comes to learning about climate politics and democracy.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0